Jimquisition: Neutered

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Neutered

Why do gamers defend their favorite titles from criticism with such volatility? According to some, it's because they don't want to see their genitalia removed.

Watch Video

Jim, my dearest Jim, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET AL THESE STOCK PHOTOS OF COSTUMES, or at least where did the idea come from.

I love how Saints Row lets you design your avatar to look exactly like you.

Saints Row IV seems to be receiving a lot of "pre-hate", at least what I've seen so far, mostly because of story and gameplay changes. Despite that though I wonder how much it will come up here.

Asking artists to break away from tired, stereotypical ideas and accept harder challenges leads to originality? This is baseless pseudo-science.

Now I need to play Saints Row.
Thank you Jim.
You on your own, are the best advertiser any game needs.

that giant, purple dildo is the only reason i keep coming here.

I think more games need to panda.

I don't think Saints Row is the best example to use. A game where you can create your own character shouldn't be compared to a game where the characters are already created for you.

Also, people might be worrying that characters like the sorceress wouldn't be allowed if detractors got their way, which would be stifling creativity somewhat.

More character diversity would be nice though.

Too bad Saints Row doesn't let the player go to town in the creative department as much as it used to.

Inclusivity, the Viagra of videogames.

The only thing I got out of this episode is that I should get Saints Row 4. The footage he was showing looked all kinds of insane.

Its really only neutering in some cases in the sense that: Oh, we dont get to have a G-cupped playable character in this game, OH NOES MY CREATIVITY.

Then again on the other hand in some cases it does have a fair point to dismiss the criticism when its not relevant in any way to the actual game.
For example: Does the sorceress breasts somehow lower the quality of the game? No, no it does not. Only mechanics and actual faults with the game can lower a games overrall quality in my opinion, not subjective personal nonsense like the artstyle not being appealing or the music not being received well by some. Whether you like something or not, its not a valid reason to critique a game for.

"How dare someone make a game with an artstyle that i dont find personally appealing, this game sucks"

Y'know, a thought just hit me based on what you said, Jim. What genres of games would benefit the most from a little creativity coming from people just coming in?

I do also believe that saints row is a great example where we can have our cake and eat it too unlike some other games where its just about: Lets pander to this demographic, or, Lets try and not offend this particular group so lets remove this and this and this.

Thats the beauty of games in a nutshell, you can have your cake and eat it in this sense because you can still be as creative as possible and still be inclusive to all kinds of groups, with the small exception of the retarded censorcrazy dipshits who wants NO FUN ALLOWED and dont wish to give people said freedom in games because god knows why.

The only problem I have with using Saints Row as an example is the fact that the Player Character is a Customisable Avatar. While fine for RPGS, Sandbox Games and other games with a custom PC, it doesn't really say much about games like Red Dead Redemption or GTA V where the characters/story are written specifically to the one intended vision of the designers for those characters.

This may be irrational of me, but given the current mentality to design and events like Retake Mass Effect, isn't there a risk of a precedent that will only result in another set of checkboxes for developers to make their games 'acceptable'? Don't think I disagree with the spirit of your argument, I just think there needs to be a caveat about this being for encouragement of new ideas and not to be interpreted as something to be expected from the get go of a games inception.

Did any of what I said make sense?

Being more inclusive "when done right" - as was mentioned several times - does indeed encourage creativity.

However, a "checklist" of positive representations or vetoing potentially negative representations DOES stifle creativity.

With GTA-V the complaint is there isn't a female character... the question to the response is "Why should there have to be?" because is there some quota that is not being met somewhere? I am not aware of it.

Picking apart individual games for industry trends is, for all intents and purposes, a dick move. It's essentially the same as "making an example" where in some criminal cases an individual will be handed a far harsher sentencing than would otherwise be deserved in an effort to "send a message" to other would-be criminals. While one can see the appeal in the attempt to fight a growing trend... what of the sentenced individual? They just caught a rap far in excess of the actual "crime", their punishment was compounded for reasons outside of their control and because they just happened to be the unlucky schmuck who got the attention of the judge or social group who want to make a name for themselves.

And to be fair, Saints Row doesn't exactly have need of a character driven story. Your cis/trans/male/female/straight/bi/pan/white/asian/black/fat/thin/buff/weak/short/tall character is going to behave essentially the exact same as the next cis/trans/male/female/straight/bi/pan/white/asian/black/fat/thin/buff/weak/short/tall character.

The hand-drawn art sprites of Dragons Crown or the voice acting and story of GTA-V are not so interchangeable.

Now, I haven't played Saints Row 4

But I have played 3.

And if 4 is even just mostly similar, then using it as a central argument for creativity is fucking MADNESS.

Saints Row is just aggressively fucking juvenile, and I'm not the sort of person to lay down that sort of accusation lightly. There's nothing creative about just brainstorming "Things that would make your grandmother blush" and then just throwing everything you come up with into the game. It's just not. The game isn't trying to say ANYTHING. Now games shouldn't have to say anything, but if you want to use a game as a central argument for creativity then you should REALLY be aiming higher.

Would you please explain to me what is "creative" about a big purple dildo? You must think it is since it is literally the line you end your argument on.

Monxeroth:
Its really only neutering in some cases in the sense that: Oh, we dont get to have a G-cupped playable character in this game, OH NOES MY CREATIVITY.

Then again on the other hand in some cases it does have a fair point to dismiss the criticism when its not relevant in any way to the actual game.
For example: Does the sorceress breasts somehow lower the quality of the game? No, no it does not. Only mechanics and actual faults with the game can lower a games overrall quality in my opinion, not subjective personal nonsense like the artstyle not being appealing or the music not being received well by some. Whether you like something or not, its not a valid reason to critique a game for.

"How dare someone make a game with an artstyle that i dont find personally appealing, this game sucks"

The BEWBS controversy is a giant red herring to begin with. It's a setting where everything is a grotesque. The real issue is in the games where there's a slimy film of hate towards everyone else that extends beyond idiots in multiplayer. The games where there are no women except to be protected or used for shock value. Where you're expected to just take "they're brown or foreign" as excuse to begin shooting.

These issues don't get addressed when people yell about BEWBS being bad and why you're a terrible person for not demanding bigger BEWBS.

Saints Row for all its flaws is a series that has women from competent to "low-functioning burnout", an ambiguously-gay intellectual black dude, and an "it's not important" main character who is so good at killing the world considers them a sociopath.

Ninjamedic:
The only problem I have with using Saints Row as an example is the fact that the Player Character is a Customisable Avatar. While fine for RPGS, Sandbox Games and other games with a custom PC, it doesn't really say much about games like Red Dead Redemption or GTA V where the characters/story are written specifically to the one intended vision of the designers for those characters.

This may be irrational of me, but given the current mentality to design and events like Retake Mass Effect, isn't there a risk of a precedent that will only result in another set of checkboxes for developers to make their games 'acceptable'? Don't think I disagree with the spirit of your argument, I just think there needs to be a caveat about this being for encouragement of new ideas and not to be interpreted as something to be expected from the get go of a games inception.

Did any of what I said make sense?

One of the best things about SR is that well the character is very customizable they also come with a lot of character. The boss is defined she has traits and flaws. With 3 games under her belt she even has a rather impressive back story. It's not like in TES where you make a character with no backstory or any personality then what you imagine. SR gives you a character with backstory and personality then lets you fill in the aesthetic. That is just a little aside about SR.

Just goes to support what I've always said.
The day every game has a character creator, will be a great day for us all.

I both agree and disagree.

I agree with the point you are making, but at the same time you seem to be countering a point that doesn't seem to be exactly the one being made (at least from what I have really seen).

When I see people complain about games being restricted I don't see them meaning in the sense that they will have less creativity. They tend to mean that they will have less creative freedom. That by caving into people saying "This is bad" or "You shouldn't be doing that" they are paving the way for people to dictate what developers can and cannot do. That would be stopping developers from making the games that they want to make and they will end up only making games that the loudest people want made, so as not to get any backlash from it.

I suppose the Mass Effect 3 ending is a good example. They chose to make the ending as it was originally and people complained about it extremely vocally. So they released the extended cut. Many people argued that by caving into the people complaining the developers gave up their creativity, because they didn't make the ending that they thought the game should have, they gave in and created the ending that the complainers wanted.

I think the fear is that if enough people start complaining about certain features in games, it will become considered socially unacceptable to have those features at all. In some ways that is actually a valid point. If people complain non-stop about sexy female characters, then eventually they are going to stop being made at all, because developers don't want the constant outrage over it from tarnishing the games reputation and giving it negative press.

It is a similar point to the one you made last week in fact. Developers don't want their fans ruining their success by harping on at a single negative review, and likewise I sincerely doubt that the creators of something like Dragons Crown wanted people only going on about the female character designs. They put a lot more into the game than titillation (I am assuming here, I haven't played the game nor do I particularly want to) so by people only dragging down the discussions to complain about the boobs, they might be put off creating such designs in the future.

People often say they don't wish to stop these kinds of things being made, only to have more choices and variety when it comes to games. A much better way of doing this is to praise the ones you like, rather than rant and rave at the ones that you don't. If people who like buxom characters praise them, games will have them. Likewise if people prefer their female characters more reasonably proportioned, then they should be discussing them and praising developers when they do make them. This will encourage them to make more.

Which doesn't happen very often to be honest. Even when developers do make decent characters to appeal to a wider audience they still get complaints. Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us all got sexism complaints based around how they created their female characters, and how is that going to encourage more variety? It's just going to put people off and in many ways that does dampen creativity.

Holy Hell that post was a lot longer than I originally intended.

I don't understand the point of this episode.
(To be honest I don't understand the point of a lot of episodes)

I usually find my self thinking: That needed to be said? People don't understand that?
But this one is off the chart.

The adage is "Limitation breeds creativity"
The less freedom you have the more you have to think about what you're doing, the more you think the better the outcome.

That's basic, on a core level
Infinite possibilities just leads to paralysis, and more often than not leads to a regurgitation of the same stuff you're comfortable with. (Especially form a writing perspective)

I'm glad this episode exists because people SHOULD KNOW THAT STUFF!

nomotog:

One of the best things about SR is that well the character is very customizable they also come with a lot of character. The boss is defined she has traits and flaws. With 3 games under her belt she even has a rather impressive back story. It's not like in TES where you make a character with no backstory or any personality then what you imagine. SR gives you a character with backstory and personality then lets you fill in the aesthetic. That is just a little aside about SR.

That's the thing though, in the continuity of Saint's Row, the characters gender, ethnicity etc. are irrelevant since the story permits it.

What if Red Dead Redemption had an option that let you swap John Marston's ethnicity or gender and not even a single line of dialog was changed, don't you think the game would become a little more jarring given the setting?

Legion:

Holy Hell that post was a lot longer than I originally intended.

And it express my view far greater than mine. Good show sir, you have thoroughly bested me. *tips top hat*

I've always said that the key to gamer inclusion lies in the create-a-character games.
These types of games allow the gamer to be the star instead of some pre-made corporate mascot.

As much as I enjoy the exploits of Link, Mario and there like. I find my self gravitating to games like Saints Row or Skyrim where the character that I've invested time, thought and emotion into gets it's chance to shine.

Monxeroth:

Then again on the other hand in some cases it does have a fair point to dismiss the criticism when its not relevant in any way to the actual game.
For example: Does the sorceress breasts somehow lower the quality of the game? No, no it does not. Only mechanics and actual faults with the game can lower a games overrall quality in my opinion, not subjective personal nonsense like the artstyle not being appealing or the music not being received well by some. Whether you like something or not, its not a valid reason to critique a game for.

"How dare someone make a game with an artstyle that i dont find personally appealing, this game sucks"

I couldn't disagree more. Interactive media is more than mechanics alone. It is the art style, the the plot, the sound, the camera angle, the pacing, etc. as well as the mechanics. It's called "Gesamtkunstwerk".

Here's Mr.BTongue explaining why:

Does Miniature Fantasy Willem Defoe have a new friend? What's there name?

So, let me see if I get the argument correctly... *clears throat*

"If the homogenised AAA industry has to include women, it'll become, gasp, homogenised! Our CoD clones will become even more derivative! Our Duke Nukem Forevers will become even bigger piles of machismo schlock! And our Soul Caliburs will, gasp, have to include women with bodytypes other than this:

image

What is the world of gaming coming too?"

/sarcasm

What I don't get is why, oh, why, people who complaint about this or that type of game just ignore them and invest more time and money on games they like?

Isn't "Because the industry don't make them" a bad excuse??

If I was a game designer and someone told me that my game is this or that, I would say: "Yeah, it is... This is how I made it... Do I force you play and like my games? So don't try to impose your view into my work".

The solution to the lack of certain content in game is resolved by creating new content, not trying to change other peoples work.

JudgeGame:
Asking artists to break away from tired, stereotypical ideas and accept harder challenges leads to originality? This is baseless pseudo-science.

Ya I agree. I generally agree with Jim but not this week. This sorta movement will just force guidelines and stifle creativity. If the creator wants to do things a certain way than they should be able too simple as that. Saints row wanted to be have crazy customization but just because they wanted it doesn't mean everyone should be forced to have it. If someone wanted a all female cast I say go for it for all I care they just shouldn't be forced to do it.

Ninjamedic:

nomotog:

One of the best things about SR is that well the character is very customizable they also come with a lot of character. The boss is defined she has traits and flaws. With 3 games under her belt she even has a rather impressive back story. It's not like in TES where you make a character with no backstory or any personality then what you imagine. SR gives you a character with backstory and personality then lets you fill in the aesthetic. That is just a little aside about SR.

That's the thing though, in the continuity of Saint's Row, the characters gender, ethnicity etc. are irrelevant since the story permits it.

What if Red Dead Redemption had an option that let you swap John Marston's ethnicity or gender and not even a single line of dialog was changed, don't you think the game would become a little more jarring given the setting?

It would be much more jarring. It would also be much more interesting. The dissidence is a part of the fun in SR. (It can be quite jarring in SR don't forget, all the lines about stripper poles don't go away and the fight animations don't change either.)

You might say that such dissidence wouldn't fit in a "realistic" game like RDR and I guess your right. Character swapping isn't for every game. On the other hand, there is no reason that Jane Marston couldn't of had RDR all to herself.

Abomination:
Being more inclusive "when done right" - as was mentioned several times - does indeed encourage creativity.

However, a "checklist" of positive representations or vetoing potentially negative representations DOES stifle creativity.

With GTA-V the complaint is there isn't a female character... the question to the response is "Why should there have to be?" because is there some quota that is not being met somewhere? I am not aware of it.

A game designer should ask "Why should there have to be _?", but they should also ask "What would a _ bring to the story?". If the story is a well-made story that feels complete from the given perspectives then, post-release, everything should be fine because it's a good game, barring stupid idiots complaining for the sake of complaining. If not, then they might've needed more representative characters or portrayed the ones they have better.

Abomination:
Picking apart individual games for industry trends is, for all intents and purposes, a dick move. It's essentially the same as "making an example" where in some criminal cases an individual will be handed a far harsher sentencing than would otherwise be deserved in an effort to "send a message" to other would-be criminals. While one can see the appeal in the attempt to fight a growing trend... what of the sentenced individual? They just caught a rap far in excess of the actual "crime", their punishment was compounded for reasons outside of their control and because they just happened to be the unlucky schmuck who got the attention of the judge or social group who want to make a name for themselves.

If we don't use specific examples by singling out games then how can we expect to have any kind of argument at all. We'd be stuck talking in vague terms about how some games from a genre tend to do something that someone dislikes. Making an example of a game isn't anything like making an example of a criminal, we're not punishing it for doing something bad or disagreeable. The only potential problem (for publishers) with making an example of a game would be if some viewers decide to not buy the game because the evaluated problem is a deal breaker for them, and that's a good thing, or else someone walks away an unhappy customer and takes to forum boards to vent. To make use of your law analogy, making an example of a game is more like using a court case as an example, it's an example about how the public treated this idea and how it's still true.

I love the "creativity" argument as it pertains to a game that is called a rehash, a throwback, and an homage. Is there really anything new to Dragon's Crown?

And hey, I've said it before: in itself, there's nothing wrong with "more of the same." Especially if it's good. But if we're making a creativity argument, then at least part of that goes out the window. Even parodies are often not very creative, and they're more than simple retreads under the guise of tribute. Or, at least, they should be.

I'm glad Jim brings up SR in this video. Amidst a ton of other controversies in gaming, Saints Row the Third managed to avoid pretty much all of them. It's not because it's tame but because of the way it approaches....

Well, everything. Dildo bats, nutshots, streaking (even a mandatory mission where you're nude and drugged) and all from a series where the last game allowed you to spray shit on people for money. Not only hasn't it been stifled, but it's escaped the ire of the people who complained about Tomb Raider and Hitman. I wonder how....

I'm rambling. Gaming's creativity is not what's being threatened.

Jim I must say, you were looking rather handsome today. I found it hard to concentrate on your point.

Point! HURRHURR I made a penus joke!!

Mikeyfell:
I don't understand the point of this episode.
(To be honest I don't understand the point of a lot of episodes)

I usually find my self thinking: That needed to be said? People don't understand that?
But this one is off the chart.

The adage is "Limitation breeds creativity"
The less freedom you have the more you have to think about what you're doing, the more you think the better the outcome.

That's basic, on a core level
Infinite possibilities just leads to paralysis, and more often than not leads to a regurgitation of the same stuff you're comfortable with. (Especially form a writing perspective)

I'm glad this episode exists because people SHOULD KNOW THAT STUFF!

Yes, that's generally it. Minds are blown that this sort of thing needs to be spelled out (time and time again).

Did...did I just see a flash frame of Biffo the Bear?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here